Seema Mehta vs Lalit Mehta
1989 Latest Caselaw 92 Del

JUDGMENT

M.K. Chalwa, J.

(1) In a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Smt. Seema Mehta, the petitioner averred that the marriage between her and Lalit Mehta was solemnised on 10th March, 1985, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Thereafter, they lived as husband and wife till 28th of July, 1985. The grounds for seeking decree of divorce is incorporated in para 4 of the petition. It reads thus :- "4.That the petitioner before her marriage was in love with some other person (whose name she does not want to put on record though she has disclosed before the respondent). She bad illicit sex relations with him. On 28-7-1985 the petitioner somehow disclosed the aforesaid facts with complete details to the respondent on 28-7-1985. The respondent abandoned the petitioner that very moment and the petitioner was forced to live separately in one room. The mother of the petitioner was called who came on 17-8-1985 at her present residence. The petitioner admitted all her guilt pertaining to her unchaste life before her own mother and all the members of the respondents as well. The mother of the petitioner got a nervous shock, she became faint and could be restored to normal after about an hour by administering her artificial respiration. None of the members in the home is on speaking term. Every member passes taunting remarks. The respondent himself taunts in a very humiliating and pinching way; be calls her bad names. The petitioner is, thus, under under continuous tension and tyranny. She feels socially finished. She is forced to live in an atmosphere where she does not want to show her face."

(2) She further alleged that there is no question of reconciliation between the parties and she has not in any manner condoned the cruelty or has presented the petition in collusion with the respondent,

(3) Along with the petition, Smt. Seema Mehta also moved an application under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for leave to present the petition for divorce before the expiration of one year from the date of the marriage. This application was allowed by order dated 17th December, 1985.

(4) The respondent in his reply admitted most of the averments contained in the petition and further alleged that he has neither forgotten nor forgiven the petitioner for her acts of adultery which, by itself, is a sufficient ground to dissolve the marriage. However, his case is that neither he nor any of his family members treated the petitioner with cruelty, even though he himself is undergoing great mental tension and suffering at the hands of the petitioner. In fact, the reputation of his entire family has suffered an irreparable injury. The respondent has not and can never condone the acts of adultery on the part of the petitioner as she had been a willing participant to the sexual intercourse outside the wedlock.

(5) The petitioner appeared as her own witness and corroborated the averments disclosed in the petition. In this view of the matter, the respondent did not lead any evidence.

(6) By the impugned Judgment, the Additional District Judge allowed the petition and dissolved the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is against this order the present appeal has been preferred.

(7) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that even though the petitioner is an educated lady but she was forced to sign on the last page of the petition filed by her so-called counsel, engaged on her behalf by the respondent. She was not informed of the contents of the concocted and baseless allegations made in the petition against herself. According to the learned counsel, a fraud has been practiced on the appellant which itself is a sufficient cause for setting aside the decree.

(8) I have carefully considered the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant but I do not find any substance in the same.

(9) Had this been the only petition containing the averments against her own interest, then the petitioner had something to say about it. But this is not the case here. In the petition itself, the petitioner referred to an earlier petition No. 418/85 under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. It was instituted in the court of Additional District Judge on 22nd of August, 1985. In Para no. 4 of the said petition, similar allegations were incorporated. The relevant extracts read as under:- "THAT there has been pre-marital illicit sex relations of the petitioner No. 1 (Smt. Seema Mehta) with a person and she still intends to continue the same. She was reluctant to marry with the petitioner No. 2 (Shri Lalit Mehta). Anyhow, she reluctantly agreed to marry with petitioner No. 2 due to undue influence and pressure. She disclosed all such facts before petitioner No. 2 and she further went on to the extent that she will not live with petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is determined to live with the person whom she loved before her marriage. The petitioner No. 2 was shocked to hear the aforesaid words of petitioner No. 1 and ultimately both the petitioners mutually decided to get the marriage dissolved........."

(10) As the marriage between the parties had been solemnised only on 12th March, 1985, they preferred to move an application under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned lower court did not agree to entertain the petition before the expiry of the period of one year from the date of the marriage. The petition was thus dismissed on 26th August, 1985.

(11) Feeling dissatisfied with the dismissal of their petition under Section 13-B, the parties filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the provisions of Sections 13-B and 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act as being ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this petition also, almost similar averments were reiterated by Smt. Seema Mehta. This writ petition was dismissed in liming by a Division Bench of this Court.

(12) The narration of the facts revealed that from the beginning, the petitioner has been repeatedly making and reiterating the facts of her illicit relations with another person before her marriage which she intends to continue even after her marriage with the respondent. She in fact admitted the guilt in her deposition before the Court, as a result of which, she was treated very badly, mentally tortured and abused by the members of her family and that of her husband. From that day onward, she has been staying in a separate room. According to her, it has now become impossible for her to stay with the respondent in the house of her in-laws.

(13) The petitioner is an educated lady and made the statement before the Court while in her full senses she had not only signed the present petition but many more applications, petitions and affidavits after becoming aware of the contents of those documents. She has also been appearing in the court on all the dates of bearing Along with her counsel. There is no allegation of obtaining her signatures under duress, coercion or pressure from any side. She has also not levelled any allegations against her Advocate.

(14) In view of these circumstances, the learned lower court, in my opinion, was justified in allowing the petition and passing a decree of divorce of the ground of cruelty. There is no force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.